1

The Current Planetary Crisis: a Missing Dimension in Science Education*

Luís Marques1, Amparo Vilches2, Daniel Gil-Pérez2, João Praia1, David Thompson3

1 - University of Aveiro and Research Center in Didactics and Technology for Teacher Education, Portugal

2- Universitat de València, Spain

3 - University of Keele, U.K.

MARQUES, L., VILCHES, A., GIL- PÉREZ, D., PRAIA, J. y THOMPSON, D. (2008). The Current Planetary Crisis: a Missing Dimension in Science Education, en Azeteiro, U.M., Gonçalves, F., Pereira, R., Pereira, M.J., Leal-Filho, W. and Morgado, F., Science and environmental education. Towards the integration of Science Education, Experimental Science Activities and Environmental Education. Pp. 25-47. ISBN: 978-3-631-55406-7; ISSN: 1434-3819. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Abstract

The origin of our research has been the intuition that, in spite of some dramatic calls of United

Nations experts, the attention paid by science education research to the study of citizens’

awareness of the state of the world and of the danger of an irreversible degradation of life in

our Planet, has been very poor. Our work intends to clarify to what extent this essential issue

in the education of future decision-making citizens is adequately dealt with in science

education research. With this purpose, we have posed open questions to several hundreds of

science teachers in training and in service about “problems and challenges that humanity has

to face” and we have analysed the content of high school science textbooks (looking for any

reference to the state of the world and its future). Results obtained explain why we refer to the

state of the world as a missing dimension in science education. This dimension should be

urgently incorporated if we want to answer the United Nations call to contribute to the

Decade of Education for a Sustainable Future.

Key Words: Science Education, Sustainability, Teacher Education

* This chapter has been conceived as a contribution to the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development,

established by the UN General Assembly for the period 2005-2014

2

Introduction

During the United Nations Conferences on the Environment and Development, held in

Rio in 1992 and Johannesburg in 2002, educators of all subjects and levels were asked to

contribute to the public’s awareness and understanding of the problems and challenges related

to our planet's future in order to make it possible for citizens to participate in well-founded

decision-making. Moreover, after the Johannesburg Conference, The United Nations General

Assembly unanimously approved a resolution that established a Decade of Education for

Sustainable Development (2005-2014), and proclaimed UNESCO the agency in charge of its

promotion.

But why should all educators incorporate the state of the planet as an important part of

their teaching? And why now?

We must remember that until the second half of the 20th Century our planet seemed to

individuals to be very large, practically limitless, and the effects of human activities remained

locally compartmentalized. But these compartments have begun to dissolve over the last few

decades and many problems (the greenhouse effect, ozone depletion, acid rain…) have

acquired a global dimension (Bybee, 1991; Fien, 1995; Colborn, Myers and Dumanoski,

1997; Gil-Pérez et al., 2003; Vilches & Gil-Pérez, 2003). This particularly applies to the

various global crises that have sparked public concern, especially in the last decade. These are

not separate crises: an environmental crisis, a development crisis and, more particularly over

the last decade, an energy crisis. They are all one (World Commission on Environment and

Development, 1987; Giddens, 1999). In short, we can speak of a planetary crisis (Bybee,

1991; Orr, 1995), and the state of our planet has thus become the subject of growing concern.

But, what is the situation today, more than twelve years after the Rio Conference, in the

first year of the Decade of Education for a Sustainable Future? Our hypothesis is that, in spite

of such dramatic appeals, the attention paid by curriculum planners, science teachers and

science education researchers to the state of our planet is still very poor and constitutes a

serious missing dimension in science education research and innovation (Gil-Pérez, 2001;

Vilches et al., 2003). In order to put this hypothesis to the test, we analysed science teachers'

perceptions, the content of high school science textbooks and papers published in science

education journals. In the first instance, however, this analysis requires that the current

planetary crisis be clarified.

3

The need for a holistic view

If we wish to correctly understand the current planetary emergency and how we should

act, we must go beyond considering concrete or local environmental problems and

contemplate the holistic nature of environmental education (Gayford, 1998). We need to

construct a global picture of the state of Planet Earth and to study the possible causes and

remedies thoroughly. To achieve this:

• We have taken into account the contributions of different studies undertaken from an

explicitly global point of view, such as the Worldwatch annual dossiers on ‘the state of the

world’ (Worldwatch Institute, 1984-2005), ‘Our Common Future’ (World Commission on

Environment and Development, 1987), 'The First Global Revolution’ (King and

Schneider, 1991) ‘Agenda 21’ (United Nations, 1992), The United Nations Development

Programme Reports 1990-2005, 'The World Ahead: Our Future in the Making' (Mayor

Zaragoza, 2000); ‘Something New Under the Sun. An Environmental History of the

Twentieth-Century World’ (McNeill, 2003) or ‘High Tide. News from a Warming World’

(Lynas, 2004).

• We have also analysed papers published on this subject in science education and

environmental education journals.

• Finally, we have undertaken a Delphi study (Gil-Pérez, 2001) involving several dozen

science teachers of all levels and from different countries.

These studies have enabled us to construct a network (Table 1) summarising the

collection of related problems, causes and challenges which characterise the state of the world

(Gil-Pérez, 2001).

Before commenting on the different items and discussing the attention paid to them by

science teachers, science textbooks and science education research, we shall briefly explain

how these results were obtained .

4

Table 1. Problems and challenges which characterise the present state and near

future of the world

0) The main aim should be to lay the foundations of sustainable development

This draws our attention to a collection of interconnected aims and actions:

1) To put an end to socioeconomic growth guided by private interests in the short term,

which seriously damage the environment and are particularly dangerous to living beings

This economic growth produces, among other things, the following problems:

1.1. Increasingly disordered and speculative urbanisation

1.2. Environmental pollution and its consequences (greenhouse effect, acid rain…)

1.3. Depletion of natural resources (fossil energy resources, fertile soil, drinking water…)

1.4. Ecosystem degradation and destruction of biological diversity

1.5. Destruction, particularly where cultural diversity is concerned

2) To put an end to the following causes (and their consequences) of unsustainable

socioeconomic growth:

2.1. Over-consumption in “developed” societies and dominant groups

2.2. Demographic explosion on a limited planet

2.3. Social inequalities between human groups

2.4. Conflicts and violence associated with these inequalities (military conflicts, Mafia

activities, speculation on the part of transnational companies that escape any democratic

control…)

3) To adopt positive measures in the following fields:

3.1. Political measures on a planetary scale capable of promoting and controlling the

necessary protection of the social and physical environment before the current degradation

processes become irreversible

3.2. Educational measures to overcome the general tendency to behave according to

individual short term interests, making it possible to promote solidarity by means of changes

in personal values and lifestyle choices

3.3. Technological measures to better satisfy human needs capable of favouring sustainable

development without damaging the environment, including, for example, the search for new

energy sources, the improvement of efficiency in food production, the prevention of illness

and catastrophes or the reduction and recycling of waste

4) To associate the preceding measures with the need to universalise and expand human

rights

5

4.1. Democratic civil rights (opinion, association…) for everybody as a condition sine qua

non for citizens’ decision-making about current and future environmental and social problems

4.2. Economic, social and cultural rights (to a satisfactory job, to health, to education …)

4.2.* The right, in particular, to investigate any kind of subject (life’s origin, genetic

manipulation…) without ideological limitations, but with a social control that takes into

consideration the social and environmental consequences and prevents the hasty application

of insufficiently tested technologies.

4.3. Solidarity rights (the right to a healthy environment, the right to peace and the right to

sustainable development)

Experimental design

In order to ascertain the extent to which science education adequately approaches the state

of the world, we conceived several research techniques, as follows:

• to give an open question to teachers in training and in service about “problems and

challenges that humanity has to face” (see Table 2), in order to see if they make any

reference to the different aspects concerning the state of the world included in Table 1;

This open question was put to large samples of science teachers involved in science

education courses in Spain, Portugal and Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Cuba,

Mexico, Panama etc…). A total of 327 teachers in service and 521 in training were asked this

question. We must stress that they were ordinary science teachers involved in ordinary teacher

education courses, without any type of bias.

Table 2. Open-ended question aimed at eliciting science teachers' perceptions of the

state of the world.

THE PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES THAT HUMANITY HAS TO FACE

NOWADAYS

We live in a time of accelerated changes and growing concern about how these changes are

affecting humanity and all life on earth. This concern about the “state of the world” must have

6

a clear echo in science education and generate studies capable of helping us to make well-

founded decisions.

We invite you to participate in one of these studies, by enumerating the problems and

challenges that, in your opinion, humanity has to face nowadays and in the near future.

capable of favouring sustainable development. With your help, we intend to construct

collectively as complete and correct an image as possible of the current situation and of the

measures to be adopted in the future.

• to analyse the contents of high school science textbooks (looking for any reference to

the state of the world and its future). We analysed 127 Spanish high school science

textbooks (Biology, Chemistry, Physics) published since 1992 (after the Rio

Conference).

• We used other techniques to elicit teachers' perceptions about the state of the world.

For instance, we asked teachers to make comments about a typical answer to the open

question, specifically indicating which other aspects should be contemplated. In this

way teachers did not feel they were being judged (since they were being asked to

criticise) and they had more time to think about new aspects besides those that are

most common. However, the results obtained using these different techniques were

very similar and were analysed together.

The information collected in these ways was analysed using the network elaborated to

summarise the collection of related problems, causes and challenges that characterise the state

of the world (Table 1). We looked for references to the different items in the network using

very open criteria: the slightest mention was accepted as a positive result.

We will now comment on the different items and at the same time present the results

obtained.

A global view of the problems that affect our survival

When thinking about problems and challenges concerning the future of humanity, the

basic aim signalled by experts is to lay as far as possible the foundations of sustainable

development (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987; Folch, 1998;

Gayford, 1998; United Nations Development Programme, 1999; Giddens, 1999; Schmandt &

Ward, 2000), that is to say, of development that “meets the needs of the present without

7

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. This classical

definition of the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) has obtained

widespread consensus, although sometimes this consensus is purely formal and hides serious

misunderstandings, such as interpreting ‘sustainable development’ as ‘sustained growth’,

which is, of course, the opposite. As Daly (1991) points out, we have to distinguish between

growth and development. Growth is a quantitative increase on a physical scale while

development is the qualitative improvement or the unfolding of potentialities… In view of the

fact that the human economy is a subsystem of a global ecosystem which does not grow,

although it develops, it is clear that economic growth is not sustainable over a long period.

For this reason, the expression ‘sustainable development’ has begun to be critically analysed

(Plant, 1995; Luffiego & Rabadán, 2000), giving rise to the use of other expressions, such as

‘sustainable future’ or the ‘construction of a sustainable society’ (Roodman, 1999).

Nevertheless, sustainability continues to be “the central unifying idea society most needs at

this point in human history” (Bybee, 1991). What are science teachers' views about this? Do

high school science textbooks make reference to sustainability? What is the attention paid by

science education journals to this grounding concept?

References to sustainability

From the evidence of our surveys, references to sustainability are unfortunately rare

among science teachers in training and in service. Table 3 gives the percentages and standard

deviations of the responses of science teachers (in service and in training) that make any

reference to sustainability.

Table 3. Science teachers' references to sustainability

Teachers in service

(N= 327)

Teachers in training

(N =521)

% s. d % s. d

7.3 ( 1.4 ) 4.1 (0.9)

Even among specialists in environmental education outside our survey, approaches are in

general of a local or partial nature; references to global considerations, such as the idea of

sustainable development, are very rare (Hicks and Holden, 1995). Figures corresponding to

science textbooks are a bit higher, but still very low: 15.7 (s.d. 3.2).

8

But, how are we to move towards a sustainable society? Experts refer to the necessity to

put an end to a series of interconnected facts, each one having a particular importance and

deserving individual attention, but completely linked to the rest. None of them can be

understood or treated without taking into account the whole ensemble (World Commission on

Environment and Development, 1987; United Nations, 1992; Fien, 1995; Tilbury, 1995;

Mayor Zaragoza, 2000). It is not enough, for instance, to criticise - as is usually the case -

environmental pollution and its consequences (greenhouse effect, acid rain…) or the depletion

of natural resources without taking into account other related problems.

Attention to the problems that affect our survival and their causes

Quite high percentages of science teachers – both in service and in training - signal

environmental pollution, depletion of natural resources and destruction of biological diversity

among the main problems humanity has to face (see Table 4). On the other hand, there are

few references to related problems, such as growing and disorderly urbanisation (World

Commission on Environment and Development, 1987; Girardet, 2001) or the destruction of

cultural diversity (Delors, 1996; Giddens, 1999; Mayor Zaragoza, 2000; Vilches & Gil-Pérez,

2003; United Nations Development Programme, 2004). Less than 20 % make any reference to

these aspects.

Table 4. Science teachers’ attention to the problems that affect the survival of humanity

and their causes

Problems and challenges

Teachers

in service

N= 327

% (sd)

Teachers

in training

N=521

% (sd)

1. Socioeconomic growth, guided by individual

interests …

40.4 ( 2.7 ) 42.8 ( 2.2 )

1.1 Growing, disorderly and speculative

urbanisation...

5.8 ( 1.3 ) 5.8 ( 1.0 )

1.2 Environmental pollution and its consequences 49.2 ( 2.8 ) 60.5 ( 2.1 )

1.3 Depletion of natural resources 37.0 ( 2.7 ) 31.5 ( 2.0 )

1.4 Ecosystem degradation. Destruction of biol.

diversity

50.2 ( 2.8 ) 58.4 ( 2.2 )

9

1.5 Destruction, in particular, of cultural diversity 17.4 ( 2.1 ) 12.3 ( 1.4 )

2.1 Over-consumption in 'developed' societies 7.3 ( 1.4 ) 8.6 ( 1.2 )

2.2 Demographic explosion on a limited planet 20.5 ( 2.2 ) 17.7 ( 1.7 )

2.3. Social inequalities among human groups 52.9 ( 2.8 ) 48.2 ( 2.2 )

2.4. Conflicts and violence associated with these

inequalities

28.4 ( 2.5 ) 35.7 ( 2.1 )

We find similar results in science education journals and, although percentages are

generally higher in high school science textbooks, references to the destruction of cultural

diversity do not reach 9% (see Table 5).

This very frequent omission is a clear example of the reductionism that characterises

science teachers' views - and even environmental educators’ views (Fien, 1995) - about our

planet’s problems. Against these reductionist views, it is necessary to recognise that

“environmental and development problems are not solely caused by physical and biological

factors” and that “an understanding of the parts played by aesthetic, social, economic,

political, historical and cultural elements is required” (Tilbury, 1995).

Table 5. Attention to the problems that affect the survival of humanity and their causes

in high school science textbooks

Problems and challenges

Science

textbooks

N = 138

% (sd)

1. Socioeconomic growth, guided by individual

interests …

58.3 (4.5)

1.1 Growing, disorderly and speculative

urbanisation...

36.2 (4.3)

1.2 Environmental pollution and its consequences 88.2 (2.9)

1.3 Depletion of natural resources 57.5 (4.4)

1.4 Ecosystem degradation. Destruction of biol.

diversity

83.5 (3.3)

1.5 Destruction, in particular, of cultural diversity 8.7 (2.5)

10

2.1 Over-consumption in 'developed' societies 29.9 (4.1)

2.2 Demographic explosion on a limited planet 33.1 (4.2)

2.3. Social inequalities among human groups 40.2 (4.4)

2.4. Conflicts and violence associated with these

inequalities

36.2 (4.3)

The same reductionism appears in relation to the possible causes of the Earth’s

degradation. About 40% of science teachers denounce economic growth guided by individual

interests in the short term as the foundation of the current degradation processes. This is an

accurate evaluation, according to the analyses of the World Commission on Environment and

Development (1987) or the Worldwatch Institute (Worldwatch Institute, 1984-2005).

But these problems are intimately related to other phenomena that should be considered

as well. Firstly, we draw attention to the over-consumption in so-called “developed countries”

and of dominant groups in each society (United Nations Development Programme, 1998,

2003 and 2005). A consumption that keeps growing as if the Earth's capacities were infinite is

indefensible (Brown and Mitchell, 1998; Folch, 1998).

Secondly, it is necessary to put an end to the demographic explosion on a planet which

has limited resources. Given the frequent resistance to accepting that a growing population

poses a serious problem today, it seems convenient to present some data about its influence in

relation to the present unsustainable rate of economic growth (World Commission on

Environment and Development, 1987; Orr, 1994; Hubbert, 1993; Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1990,

1993; Brown and Mitchell, 1998; Folch, 1998; Sartori & Mazzoleni, 2003):

- Since the second half of the 20th century, more human beings have been born than in the

whole of humanity's history. As some authors have pointed out, very soon there will be as

many people alive as deceased in all history; half of all human beings that have ever

existed will be alive (Folch, 1998).

- The present population would need the resources of three Earths to generalise the standard

of living of the developed countries (United Nations, 1997).

- Although the rate of population growth has diminished in recent times, the population

increases every year by about 80 million and will double again in a few decades.

Such data have led Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1990) to affirm emphatically that, without any

doubt, the demographic explosion will soon stop. What we do not know is whether the end

will arrive gently, through a decrease in the birth rate, or tragically, through the growth of

mortality. These authors add that demography is the most serious problem humanity has to

11

face today, given the time gap between the start of an appropriate programme and the

beginning of population decline. Brown & Mitchell (1998) summarise the question by saying

that population stabilisation is a fundamental requirement to halt the destruction of natural

resources and guarantee the fulfilment of everyone's basic needs.

In short, over-consumption and the demographic explosion determine a type of economic

growth that is extremely corrosive of the physical and cultural environment. Astonishingly, in

our survey, science teachers do not seem to be aware of the importance of these two

determining factors; only about 20% make any reference to demographic growth, and over-

consumption is mentioned by less than 10% (!). Similarly, 29.9% of the science textbooks

refer to over-consumption. This percentage rises to 33.1% for demographic growth.

The fact that most Europeans (including educators and politicians) see the current low

birth rate as a problem rather than a positive trend, is quite illustrative of the near absence of

values related to sustainability (Almenar, Bono and García, 1998). On the other hand, over-

consumption in developed countries and the demographic explosion in others provoke serious

inequalities. Billions of fellow humans are scarcely able to survive in undeveloped countries

and large segments of the “first world” are excluded… while a fifth of the human population

offers its high-consumption model (United Nations Development Programme, 1997 and 2003;

Folch, 1998; Mayor Zaragoza, 2000).

Extreme poverty in undeveloped countries, which is a consequence of the demographic

explosion and of the imposition of individual interests and values (through military conflicts

or through the activities and speculation on behalf of trans-national enterprises which seek to

avoid any democratic control) lead inexorably to an unsustainable exploitation of natural

resources in a desperate attempt to pay back interest, satisfy external debts and gain some

benefit. These inequalities and derived conflicts receive some attention in science teachers’

responses to our survey (about 50% mention them). However, as we have already indicated,

no relationship is established between these problems and over-consumption or demographic

explosion. There seems to be a serious lack of understanding of the relevance of globalisation

to the problems outlined. Tables 4 and 5 summarise the results we have presented in this

paragraph.

A holistic approach to the state of the world demands more than simply diagnosing the

problems; it is also necessary for teachers to study the possible solutions to the planetary

crisis described, in order to help their pupils to explore alternative approaches and to

participate in actions aimed at favouring particular alternatives. Merely studying the problems

provokes at best indignation and at worst despair (Hicks and Holden, 1995; Tilbury, 1995). It

12

is therefore necessary to answer two questions: What positive measures can be adopted? And

how much attention does science education pay to these measures?

What positive measures can be adopted?

We can structure the different proposals made by researchers and institutions into the

following three groups:

• Technological measures to better satisfy human needs without damaging the environment;

• Educational measures to make possible the necessary changes in personal values and life-

style choices;

• Political measures on a planetary scale to avoid the imposition of individual interests and

values that are harmful for other people or future generations.

Each of these measures is discussed in detail below.

Technological measures

There is general agreement over the need for technologies that favour sustainable

development (Gore, 1992; Daly, 1991; Daly and Cobb, 1989; Flavin and Dunn, 1999; United

Nations Development Programme, 2001). The proposed measures range from the search for

new energy resources, through the improvement of efficiency in food production, the

prevention of illnesses and catastrophes, to the reduction and recycling of waste. But what are

the criteria for distinguishing when technology favours sustainable development? Daly (1991)

suggests two obvious principles:

• Gathering rates of resources must not surpass regeneration rates (or, for resources that are

not renewable, the creation of renewable substitutes).

• Waste production rates must be lower than the assimilation capacities of the ecosystems.

Additionally, Daly (ibid.) insists on the fact that we are moving from an economy of an

empty world (where technology was the limiting factor for taking profit from the exploitation

of natural resources) to an economy of a full world, where natural capital will increasingly

become the limiting factor. In other words, the aim of technology for sustainable development

must be to increase the efficiency of the resources, rather than raise their extraction rate. This

means, for instance, that we need to invent more efficient lamps instead of constructing more

electrical power stations.

About 30% of science teachers in service and 50% of science teachers in training refer to

the need for these technological measures. Incidentally, this is one of the few aspects where

13

we find strong differences between teachers in training and in service. The percentage of

science textbooks that refer to these technological measures is even higher (75.6%).

Although technology has an important role to play, it is necessary to question the

widespread and erroneous idea that the solution to the serious problems which humanity has

to face today depends solely on a better knowledge and on more advanced technologies:

options and dilemmas are essentially matters of ethics (Tilbury, 1995). This conclusion directs

us in part to the educational measures we have to consider.

Educational measures

About 60% of science teachers in service, 50% of science teachers in training and 59.1%

of the science textbooks analysed signal the need for educational measures, in accordance

with the recommendations of experts on sustainability (United Nations, 1992). It is in fact the

only aspect with a high percentage in science education papers.

The educational measures proposed to contribute to a sustainable society place the

emphasis on global analyses and solidarity (Delors, 1996; Morin, 1999; Vilches & Gil-Pérez,

2003). Such measures overcome the general tendency to attend to individual short term

interests (or to follow habits that correspond to an 'empty' world of isolated compartments).

We need an education that contributes to a correct perception of the state of the world and

prepares citizens for decision-making (Aikenhead, 1985 and 1996), generating responsible

attitudes and behaviours (Bybee, 1991; Fien, 1995; Tilbury, 1995; Mayor Zaragoza, 2000)

oriented to the attainment of a culturally plural and physically sustainable development.

Questions like “What energy policy should be promoted?” or “What role should be given

to genetic engineering in the food industry?” and “What controls on GM food production

should be introduced?” demand informed decision-making and the adoption of suitable

policies. We need an education that promotes responsible behaviours, not just favourable

opinions and attitudes (Almenar, Bono and García, 1998; Vilches and Gil-Pérez, 2003).

Some authors have signalled that these responsible attitudes and behaviours cannot be

attained without overcoming the usual anthropocentric stance that gives priority to human

beings over the rest of nature (García, 1999). But in our opinion, it is not necessary to

abandon an anthropocentric point of view to understand the necessity of protecting the

environment and bio-diversity. Who could continue to promote the unsustainable exploitation

of Nature after becoming aware of the serious dangers this entails for his or her own children?

We believe that an education for a sustainable society should be based on what can be

reasonably understood by most people, even if their ethical values are more or less

14

anthropocentric. In other words, the borderline should be one that separates people who have,

from people who lack, a sound perception of problems and an inclination to contribute to the

necessary decision-making and actions. Such a perception should be enough to understand,

for instance, that educating for a sustainable future is incompatible with aggressive publicity

that stimulates unintelligent over-consumption, incompatible with simplistic and Manichean

“explanations” that attribute any difficulty to “foreign enemies” and incompatible with the

promotion of competitiveness, understood as a contest to achieve something at the expense of

others who are pursuing the same objective (Vilches & Gil-Pérez, 2003).

It is necessary for such education to promote the analysis of conceptions that are

presented as “obvious” and “unquestionable” without alternatives, thus obstructing the

possibility of making choices. This is particularly the case with competitiveness. Everybody

speaks of competitiveness as something that is absolutely necessary, without realising that it

is a type of behaviour which is incompatible with the aim of sustainable development. In fact,

the success of one person or group in a commercial battle implies the failure of others. This

contradicts, we insist, the characteristics of sustainable development, which must necessarily

be global and embrace the whole planet.

Instead of promoting competitiveness, we need education that helps students and teachers

to analyse the efficiency of our actions from a global viewpoint, taking into account its

repercussions in the short, medium and long term, both for ourselves and for the whole of

humanity. We need education that helps to transform the current economic globalisation into

a democratic and sustainable project (Delors, 1996) that enhances the richness of biological

and cultural diversity. Nevertheless, it is quite frequent to hear doubts about the effectiveness

of such education, “given that individual behaviours have a small influence on such big

problems as, for instance, resource depletion or environmental degradation” (ibid.). These

problems, it is affirmed, are basically provoked by large industries. But it is easy (very simple

calculations are needed) to show that although an individual can only save a very small

quantity of energy or materials, when these quantities are multiplied by millions of people, the

amount that could be saved becomes quite large, with the consequent reduction in

environmental pollution and degradation. In fact, appeals to individual responsibility are

multiplying; they include detailed lists of possible concrete actions in different fields, ranging

from water and food supply to traffic, from cleaning, heating and lighting to family planning

(Button and Friends of the Earth, 1990; Silver and Vallely, 1998; The Earth Works Group,

2000; Riechmann, 2003).

15

These educational aims need to be incorporated into an appropriate educational

framework which contemplates, among other measures, international, national and local

curricula for the period of compulsory schooling, provision for adult education at all ages, in-

service teacher training, etc. It is stressed that the aims of such a programme should be

implemented across a range of school subjects, particularly at secondary level, not just

through science education alone, however the latter is organised.

On the other hand, individual contributions can and must go beyond the private domain

and extend to professional, social and political activities. They can support, for instance, non-

governmental organisations and political parties that promote solidarity and environmental

protection; they can also demand positive action on behalf of public institutions (town

councils, parliaments). It is particularly necessary for individual and collective actions to

avoid local or partial approaches and contemplate many-sided environmental questions

(pollution, resources depletion…), and other related problems, such as social inequalities and

conflicts, from a planetary perspective. The ecologists slogan “to think globally and to act

locally” has its limitations; we now know that it is also necessary to act globally as well

(O’Connor, 1992), by adopting political measures on a planetary scale, capable of avoiding

the imposition of individual interests and values harmful for other people or for future

generations. We comment on these in the next section.

Political measures

Unfortunately, only about 20% of science teachers in training or in service and 22% of

science textbooks contemplate the need for political measures to guarantee the defence of the

environment and life on Earth. Moreover, the discussion about the political measures that

could promote sustainable development usually produces inflamed debates, but demands

careful analyses. The adoption of planetary political measures is contemplated by most

science teachers and citizens with scepticism and with a certain reluctance.

There is scepticism, because previous attempts have shown little effectiveness.

Nevertheless, “radioactivity that knows no borders reminds us that we are living - for the first

time in human history - in an interconnected civilisation that embraces the whole planet”

(Havel, 1997). We can therefore understand the absolute necessity, also for the first time in

human history, for political integration to put the environment, as the common substratum of

life, above the economic interests of any country, region or trans-national enterprise.

We could think that the danger of only local approaches is disappearing because of the

present vertiginous process of economic globalisation. Paradoxically, this process is not

16

global at all when it concerns the survival of life on our planet. As Naredo (1997) pointed out,

“in spite of so much talking about globalisation, our approaches continue to be partial,

sectorial and one-dimensional”. We do not consider environmental destruction specifically…

or rather we take it into account, but not in order to avoid it. Economic globalisation, explains

Cassen (1997), “irresistibly pushes to displace production centres towards countries where

ecological norms are less restrictive”.

Economic globalisation thus appears to be quite one-dimensional. For this reason,

planetary norms are necessary in order to avoid the general degradation of the environment

and the economic cost, which has only just begun to be evaluated (Constanza et al., 1997). In

this sense, political integration on a planetary scale is deemed absolutely necessary and

urgent; this integration must be capable of promoting and controlling the measures to protect

our social and physical environments before the degradation process becomes irreversible.

In short, a new world order is required, based on co-operation and solidarity, with

institutions capable of avoiding the imposition of particular vested interests harmful to other

people or to future generations (French, 1992; Renner, 1999; Cassen, 1997; Folch, 1998;

Giddens, 1999; Sen, 1999; United Nations Development Programme, 2002). However, this

planetary political integration, that our survival seems to depend on, also generates the fear of

cultural homogenisation which is already in progress: that is to say, the fear of cultural

impoverishment. But the destruction of cultures cannot be attributed to a process of political

integration which has not yet occurred. It is just another consequence of purely commercial

integration. A democratic order on a planetary scale could contemplate the protection of the

environment and the defence of biological and cultural diversity, without excluding

intercultural exchanges.

A fully democratic worldwide political integration constitutes, therefore, a prerequisite

which will help stop the current physical and cultural planetary degradation. Sadly, as we

have already indicated, only 20% of science teachers consider these kinds of measures to be

necessary.

The collection of measures outlined so far appears to be associated with the need to

universalise human rights. The next section is dedicated to clarifying this relationship.

Sustainable development and human rights

It may seem strange to establish such a direct relationship between human rights and

sustainable development. In fact, only 6% of teachers in service and in training and just 1.6%

of science textbooks consider that overcoming the current degradation processes and

17

inequalities is a question of human rights. For this reason, we shall try to clarify what is

understood nowadays by human rights, a concept that has been growing and now

contemplates three “generations” of rights (Vercher, 1998).

We can refer, firstly, to democratic civil rights (opinion, association…) for everybody,

without social, ethnic or gender limitations. These constitute a condition sine qua non for

citizens' decision-making about current and future environmental and social problems (Folch,

1998). They are known nowadays as “first generation human rights”, because they were the

first rights to be demanded and obtained (not without conflict) in a growing number of

countries. In this respect, we must not forget that the 'Droits de l'Homme' from the French

Revolution (to mention a wellknown example) explicitly excluded women, who only

achieved the right to vote in France after the Second World War. Neither must we forget that

such fundamental rights are systematically violated every day in many countries.

In the second place, we refer to economic, social and cultural rights or “second generation

human rights” (Vercher, 1998; United Nations Development Programme, 2000), such as:

• The universal right to a satisfying job, overcoming insecure situations to which hundreds

of millions of human beings (including more than 250 million children) are submitted;

• The universal right to an adequate dwelling in an appropriate physical and cultural milieu;

• The universal right to appropriate nourishment, both quantitatively (avoiding under-

nourishment of billions of fellow humans) and qualitatively (avoiding unbalanced diets);

• The universal right to health. This requires resources, research and education in order to

fight infectious illnesses (cholera, malaria…, that are still ravaging many third-world

countries) and the new 'industrial' and behavioural illnesses (such as tumours, depressions,

AIDS…). It is necessary, above all, to promote healthy milieus and habits as well as

solidarity towards disadvantaged or handicapped people;

• The universal right to family planning and free enjoyment of sexuality (the only limitation

being the freedom of others), overcoming the cultural and religious barriers that condemn

millions of women to submission;

• The universal right to an education of quality, throughout one's life, without social, ethnic

or gender limitations;

• The universal right to culture, in its broadest sense, as a supporting axis for personal and

collective enrichment and development;

• The universal right to investigate any kind of subject (life's origin, genetic

manipulation…) without ideological limitations (such as those which prohibited Galileo's

18

work), but with a suitable degree of social control. This control must take into

consideration social and environmental consequences and prevent the hasty application of

insufficiently tested technologies.

Finally, we refer to third-generation human rights, known as solidarity rights “because

they tend to preserve the integrity of the whole population” (Vercher, 1998). They incorporate

the right to life in a suitable environment, the right to peace and the right to sustainable

development for all people and future generations:

• The right of all human beings to an environment appropriate to their health and welfare.

As Vercher (1998) states, the incorporation of this right as a fundamental human right

derives from an unquestionable fact: “if degradation of the environment continues at the

current rate, maintaining it will soon be the most fundamental survival issue for

everybody, everywhere… The later we recognise this situation, the greater the sacrifices

and difficulties that will need to be overcome to achieve an appropriate recovery”.

• The right to peace, which involves the prevention of individual or vested interests

(economic, ethnic, cultural…) prevailing over general interests and values.

• The right to sustainable economic and cultural development of all peoples. This involves,

on the one hand, the questioning of the present marked economic inequalities between

different human groups and, on the other hand, the defence of cultural diversity and

cultural crossbreeding (against racism and ethnic or social barriers).

Vercher insists on the fact that these third generation rights 'can only be achieved by the

harmonious effort of all actors of the social scene'. We can therefore understand the link we

have established between sustainable development and the universalisation of human rights.

And we can also understand the need to proceed towards real globalisation, with democratic

institutions on a planetary scale that are capable of guaranteeing this ensemble of rights.

The ensemble of these rights appears to be a requisite (and, at the same time, an objective)

of a sustainable society, as they are all interconnected. We cannot conceive, for instance, the

interruption of the demographic explosion without the recognition of the right to family

planning and free enjoyment of sexuality… and these are connected also to the right to

education.

In short, achieving sustainable development is synonymous with universalising human

rights in their widest sense. This requires:

• creating democratic institutions, on a planetary scale, that are capable of preventing the

imposition of individual interests that are harmful to other people or future generations;

19

• orienting scientific technological development towards the attainment of technologies that

favour sustainable development;

• promoting education that is capable of countering the general tendency to behave

according to individual short term interests.

Unfortunately, we note that most science teachers in our survey, as well as the textbooks,

do not make any reference to human rights:

• only 6% of teachers (both in service or in training) consider that overcoming the current

degradation processes and inequalities is a question of human rights;

• references to democratic civil rights are made by less than 2% of science teachers and less

than 7% refer to rights of solidarity;

• the only rights that are mentioned by a significant percentage of science teachers – about

10% - are socio-economic.

Tables 6 and 7 summarise the results which relate to the foregoing matters.

Table 6. Attention of science teachers to the positive measures to be adopted.

Positive measures proposed

Teachers

in service

N= 327

% (sd)

Teachers

In training

N=521

% (sd)

3.1 Political measures on a planetary scale 19.9 (2.2) 17.9 (1.7)

3.2 Educational measures 63.9 (2.7) 52.4 (2.2)

3.3. Technological measures 31.5 (2.6) 50.3 (2.2)

4. Universalisation of human rights 6.1 (1.3) 5.8 (1.0)

20

4.1 Democratic civil rights 1.8 (0.7) 0.7 (0.4)

4.2 Economic, social and cultural rights 11.3 (1.8) 7.1 (1.1)

4.2.* The right, in particular, to investigate any

kind of subject

13.1 (1.9) 22.3 (1.8)

4.3. Solidarity rights (the right to a healthy

environment…)

6.7 (1.4) 5.1 (1.0)

Table7. Attention in science high school textbooks to the measures to be adopted

Positive measures proposed

Science

textbooks

N = 138

% (sd)

3.1 Political measures on a planetary scale 22.0 (3.7)

3.2 Educational measures 59.1 (4.2)

3.3. Technological measures 75.6 (3.8)

4. Universalisation of human rights 1.6 (1.1)

4.1 Democratic civil rights 1.6 (1.1)

4.2 Economic, social and cultural rights 3.9 (1.7)

4.2.* The right, in particular, to investigate any

kind of subject

30.7 (4.1)

4.3. Solidarity rights (the right to a healthy

environment…)

18.9 (3.5)

Conclusions and perspectives

Any attempt to confront the problems that affect human survival should contemplate the

ensemble of challenges that we have pointed out. We have already shown that high

percentages of science teachers and science textbooks ignore each of the aspects under study.

In fact, the mean of the aspects identified by teachers in service and in training is,

respectively, 4.7 and 4.9 (from a total of 19). This mean is 7.0 in science textbooks, far from

the 19 aspects contemplated in our analysis network. The similarity of the results obtained

from these different methods reinforces our finding that concern for the state of the planet is a

21

missing dimension in science education. Figures 1 and 2 show this very clearly. They also

reveal the reductionism of the perceptions of science educators and researchers.

22

Figure 1. Science teachers' perceptions about the state of the world

(The figures on the horizontal axis relate to the numbered items quoted in table 1)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

%

0 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2

Figure 2. The attention of science textbooks to the state of the world

23

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

%

0 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 3.3 4 4.1 4.2 4.2* 4.3

N = 127

These results explain why we have referred to the state of the world as a missing

dimension in science education. This dimension should be urgently incorporated if we want to

answer the United Nations call to contribute to the Decade of Education for a Sustainable

Future. We have already begun to implement workshops to facilitate the study of these

problems by science teachers (Gil-Pérez et al., 2003; Edwards et al., 2004). Results obtained

are quite encouraging, but more research and training is needed for this dimension to be

effectively incorporated into the ordinary science curriculum.

References

Aikenhead, G.S. 1985. Collective Decision Making in the Social Context of Science. Science

Education, 69 (4): 453-475.

Aikenhead,G.S.1996.Towards a First Nations Cross-Cultural Science and Technology

Curriculum for Economic Development, Environmental Responsibility, and Cultural Survival

(IOSTE 1996). In http://www.usask.ca/education/people/aikenhead/iost1996.htm

Almenar, R., Bono, E. and García, E. 1998. La Sostenibilidad del Desarrollo: El Caso

Valenciano. Valencia: Fundació Bancaixa.

Brown, L.R. and Mitchell, J. 1998. Building a New Economy. In Worldwatch Institute, The

State of the World 1998. New York: W.W. Norton.

Button, J. and Friends of the Earth 1990. ¡Háztelo Verde! Barcelona: Integral.

Bybee, R.W. 1991. Planet Earth in Crisis: How Should Science Educators Respond? The

American Biology Teacher, 53(3), 146-153.

Cassen, B. 1997. ¡Para Salvar la Sociedad! Le Monde diplomatique, Spanish edition, second

year, 20, 5.

Chomsky, N. 2000. El beneficio es lo que cuenta. Neoliberalismo y orden global. Barcelona:

Crítica.

Colborn, T., Myers, J. P. and Dumanoski, D. 1997. Our Stolen Future. New York: Dutton.

Constanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,

Naeem, S., O'Neill, R., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R., Sutton, P. and van den Belt, M. 1997. The

Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature, 387, 253-260.

Daly, H. 1991 Steady-State Economics. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Daly, H. E. and Cobb, J. B. 1989. For the Common Good. Redirecting the Economy Toward

Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Boston: Beacon Press.

Delors, J. 1996. L'Éducation: un Trésor Est Caché Dedans. UNESCO. Commission

Internationale sur l'Education pour le vingt et unième siècle. Paris: Jacob O.

Edwards, M., Gil-Pérez, D., Vilches, A. and Praia, J. 2004. La atención a la situación del

mundo en la educación científica. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 22 (1): 47-63.

Ehrlich, P. R. and Ehrlich A.H. 1990. The Population Explosion. London: Touchstone.

Ehrlich, P. R. and Ehrlich, A.H. 1993. Why isn’t everyone as scared as we are? pp 55-112. In

Daly, H. E. and Towsend, K. N. (Eds.) Valuing the Earth. Economics, Ecology, Ethics.

Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Fien, J. 1995. Teaching for a Sustainable World: the Environmental and Development

Education Project for Teacher Education. Environmental Education Research, 1(1), 21-33.

25

Flavin, C. and Dunn, S. 1999. Reinventing the Energy System. In Worldwatch Institute, The

State of the World 1999. New York: W. W. Norton.

Folch, R. 1998. Ambiente, Emoción y Ética. Barcelona: Ariel.

French, H. F. 1992. After the Earth Summit: The Future of Environmental Governance.

Worldwatch Institute New York: W. W. Norton.

García, J. E. 1999. Una hipótesis de progresión sobre los modelos de desarrollo en Educación

Ambiental, Investigación en la Escuela, 37, 15-32.

Gayford, C. 1993. Where Are We Now with Environment and Education? (Editorial)

International Journal of Science Education, 15 (5), 471-472.

Gayford, C. 1998. The perspective of Science Teachers in Relation to Current Thinking about

Environmental Education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 16(2), 101- 113.

Giddens, A. 1999. Runaway World: How Globalisation is Reshaping Our Lives. London:

Profile Books.

Gil-Pérez, D. 2001. The state of the world. A missing dimension in physics teacher education.

In Pinto, R. & Surinach, S. (Eds.), Physics Teacher Education Beyond 2000. Paris: Elsevier.

Gil- Pérez, D., Vilches, A., Edwards, M., Praia, J., Marques, L. and Oliveira, T. 2003. A

proposal to enrich teachers' perception of the state of the world. First results. Environmental

Education Research, 9(1), 67-90.

Girardert, H. 2001. Creating Sustainable Cities. Green books Ltd. Published in Spanish with

the title ‘Creando ciudades sostenibles’. Valencia: Tilde.

Gore, A. 1992. Earth in the Balance: Ecology and The Human Spirit. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin.

Havel, V. 1997. No Somos los Amos del Universo, El País, Monday, 29th September 1997,

page13.

Hicks, D. and Holden, C. 1995. Exploring the Future: a Missing Dimension in Environmental

Education. Environmental Education Research, 1(2), 185-193.

Hubbert, M. K. 1993. Exponential Growth as a Transient Phenomenon in Human History. In

Daly, H. E. and Towsend, K. N. (Eds) Valuing the Earth. Economics, Ecology, Ethics.

Cambridge, London: The MIT Press.

King, A. and Schneider, B. 1991. The First Global Revolution. A Report by the Council of the

Club of Rome. New York: Pantheon Books.

Lynas, M. 2004. High Tide. News from a Warming World. Published in Spanish with the title

‘Marea alta’. Barcelona: RBA.

26

Luffiego, M. and Rabadán, J.M. 2000. La evolución del concepto de sostenibilidad y su

introducción en la enseñanza. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 18(3), 473-486.

Mayor Zaragoza, F. 2000. The World Ahead: Our Future on the Making. Published in French

with the title 'Un Monde Nouveau'. Paris: Editions UNESCO.

McNeill, J. R. 2003. Something New Under the Sun. An Environmental History of the

Twentieth-Century World. Published in Spanish with the title ‘Algo Nuevo bajo el

Sol’.Madrid: Alianza.

Morin, E. 1999. Les sept savoirs nécessaires à l’éducation du futur. Paris: UNESCO.

Naredo, J. M. 1997. Sobre el Rumbo del Mundo. Le Monde diplomatique, Spanish edition,

second year 20, pp.1 and 30-31.

O’Connor, J. 1992. Think Globally, Act Locally? Towards an International Red-Green

Movement. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 3 (4), pp. 1-7.

Orr, D.W. 1994. Earth in Mind. On Education, Environment, and the Human prospect.

Washington: Island Press.

Orr, D.W. 1995. Educating for the Environment. Higher Education’s Challenge of the Next

Century. Change, May/June, 43-46.

Plant, M. 1995. The Riddle of Sustainable Development and the Role of Environmental

Education, Environmental Education Research, 1(3), 253-266.

Renner, M. 1999. Ending Violent Conflict. In Worldwatch Institute, The State of the World

1999. Worldwatch Institute. New York: W. W. Norton.

Riechmann, J. 2003. Cuidar la Tierra. Políticas agrarias y alimentarias sostenibles para entrar

en el siglo XXI. Barcelona: Icaria Editorial S.A.

Roodman, D.M. 1999. The Construction of a Sustainable Society. In Brown, L.R., Flavin, C.,

French, H. et al.(Eds.), The State of the World 1999. Worldwatch Institute. New York: W. W.

Norton.

Sartori, G. & Mazzoleni, G. 2003. La Tierra explota. Superpoblación y desarrollo. Madrid:

Taurus.

Schmandt, J. and Ward, C. H. (Eds.). 2000. Sustainable Development. The Challenge of

Transition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sen, A. 1999. Development as freedom. New York: A. Knopf, Inc.

Silver, D. and Vallely, B. 1998. Lo que Tú Puedes Hacer para Salvar la Tierra. Salamanca:

Lóguez.

The Earth Works Group. 2000. Manual práctico de reciclaje. Barcelona: Blume.

27

Tilbury, D. 1995. Environmental Education for Sustainability: Defining the New Focus of

Environmental Education in the 1990s. Environmental Education Research, 1(2), 195-212.

United Nations 1992. UN Conference on Environmental and Development. Agenda 21 Rio

Declaration, Forest Principles. Paris: UNESCO.

United Nations 1997. Earth summit +5. Programme for the Further Implementation of

Agenda 21 http://www.un.org/esa/earthsummit/index.html

United Nations Development Programme 1997. Human Development Report. Human

Development to Eradicate Poverty. New York: Oxford University Press.

http://www.undp.org/hdro/97.htm

United Nations Development Programme 1998. Human Development Report. Consumption

for Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press.

http://www.undp.org/hdro/98.htm

United Nations Development Programme 1999. Human Development Report. Sustainable

Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press.

http://www.undp.org/hdro/report.html

United Nations Development Programme 2000. Human Development Report. Human Rights

and Human Development for Freedom and Solidarity. New York: Oxford University Press.

http://www.undp.org/hdr2000/home.html

United Nations Development Programme 2001. Human Development Report. Making new

technologies work for human development. New York: Oxford University Press.

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2001/

United Nations Development Programme 2002. Human Development Report. Deepening

democracy in a fragmented world. N. Y.: Oxford University Press.

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2002/

United Nations Development Programme 2003. Human Development Report. Millennium

Development Goals: A compact among nations to end human poverty. New York: Oxford

University Press. http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003/

United Nations Development Programme 2004. Human Development Report. Cultural

Liberty in Today’s Diverse World. N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2004/

United Nations Development Programme 2005. Human Development Report. International

cooperation at a crossroads: Aid, trade and security in an unequal world. New York: Oxford

University Press. http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/

28

Vercher, A. 1998. Derechos Humanos y Medio Ambiente. Claves de razón práctica, 84,

pp.14-21.

Vilches, A. and Gil- Pérez, D. 2003. Construyamos un futuro sostenible. Diálogos de

supervivencia. Madrid: Cambridge University Press.

Vilches, A., Gil- Pérez, D., Edwards, M. and Praia, J. 2003. Science Teachers’ Perceptions of

the Current Situation of Planetary Emergency. In Psilos et al., (Eds.) Science Education

Research in the Knowledge- Based Society. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

World Commission on Environment and Development 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Worldwatch Institute 1984-2005. The State of the World. New York: W.W. Norton.